CMC; Motion for Summary Judgment
other than copies in binders or an ELMO to project items. In opposition, plaintiff argues that defendants' argument is "pure speculation," and that: "Technical support is frequently provided remotely via cloud-based tools and background labor. The requested amount of $950.00 per day covers the labor required to ensure that the electronic presentations and complex video clips played for the jury functioned seamlessly without 'glitches.' " (Opp., p. 15, ll. 16-21.) The court is very familiar with both cases cited relative to tech costs: Science Applications Internat.
Corp. v. Superior Court (1995) 39 Cal.App.4th 1095, and the latter case of Bender v. County of Los Angeles (2013) 217 Cal.App.4th 968. The costs are discretionary pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1033.5, subdivision (c)(4). Conspicuously absent from plaintiff's opposition is a description of what their technician actually did for the days charged. Because plaintiff has failed to adequately show that the work performed by the technician was reasonably necessary to the conduct of the litigation, rather than merely convenient or beneficial, the costs will not be allowed.
Models, Blowups, and Photocopies of Exhibits Defendants next challenge $17,368.46, listed under Models, Blowups and Photocopies of Exhibits, incurred from Time Code Pro Sync Program for deposition video preparations of all the witnesses that testified in the case, including experts that neither testified at trial nor had their videos played for the jury. Plaintiff argues that these costs are allowed pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1033.5(a)(13), which provides: "Models, the enlargements of exhibits and photocopies of exhibits, and the electronic presentation of exhibits, including costs of rental equipment and electronic formatting, may be allowed if they were reasonably helpful to aid the trier of fact."
The court does recognize that there is a split in authority as to whether "fees are not authorized for exhibits not used at trial," (Ladas, supra, 19 Cal.App.4th at p. 775) or whether "costs incurred in preparing models, blowups, and photocopies of exhibits may be awarded under section 1033.5, subdivision (a)(13), even if these materials were not used at trial." (Segal v. ASICS America Corp. (2020) 50 Cal.App.5th 659, 667
Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities
Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”
In the present case, "video synchronization," which process is not adequately explained by plaintiff, appears to have been unnecessary and excessive. Witnesses were made available for trial testimony and deposition transcripts could have been used if impeachment was called for. $17,368.46 for video synchronization will not be allowed. Defendants also challenge $5,305.57 under this category, claiming that the printing costs lack any information or invoices supporting that the costs were related to trial exhibits.
In opposition, plaintiff provides invoices supporting the assertion that the costs were incurred. (Karpov decl., P.P. 26, 27 & Exhs. I-K.) Plaintiff argues that they are allowable costs pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1033.5, subdivision (a)(13). Allowable costs include: "Models, the enlargements of exhibits and photocopies of exhibits, and the electronic presentation of exhibits, including costs of rental equipment and electronic formatting, may be allowed if they were reasonably helpful to aid the trier of fact." (Code Civ.
Proc., Sec. 1033.5, subd. (a)(13).) The court finds that the exhibits were reasonably helpful to aid the jury and the $5,305.57 will be allowed. Travel Costs Defendants next challenge $1,050.21 for parking, mileage, and hotel costs. In opposition, plaintiff argues that the costs are discretionary pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1033.5, subdivision (c)(4), which is set forth above. In her opposition, plaintiff cites Ladas in support of her argument. However, Ladas does not help plaintiff, as it holds: "The only travel expenses authorized by section 1033.5 are those to attend depositions. (Sec. 1033.5, subd. (a)(3).)
Routine expenses for local travel by attorneys or other firm employees are not reasonably necessary to the conduct of litigation." (Ladas, supra, 19 Cal.App.4th at pp. 775-776.) The travel costs will not be allowed.
Tentative Ruling: People of the State of California vs 33,100.00 US Currency Tentative Ruling: People of the State of California vs 33,100.00 US Currency Case Number
Case Type Civil Law & Motion Hearing Date / Time Fri, 06/05/2026 - 10:00 Nature of Proceedings CMC; Motion for Summary Judgment Tentative Ruling Petitioner's motion for summary judgment is granted. The Court will sign the proposed order submitted by Petitioner. Petitioner shall submit a proposed formal judgment. Background: On November 5, 2021, petitioner People of the State of California (the "People"), filed its petition for forfeiture of Thirty Three Thousand, One Hundred Dollars in U.S. Currency (the "property").
By way of the petition, the People allege that on October 9, 2021, deputies from the Santa Barbara Sheriff's Office lawfully seized the property in connection with the arrest of Claimant Roberto Canseco-Estrada for felony criminal violations of Health & Safety Code sections 11352, 11360(a)(2), and 11351. (Pet., P. 4.) The People seek an order declaring that all interests in the property are forfeited to the State and shall be disposed of as required by Health & Safety Code section 11489.) On December 10, 2021, Claimant filed a claim opposing forfeiture.
On August 1, 2025, as the result of motions filed by the People, orders were made, including an order that the truth of the matters in the People's first set of requests for admissions propounded on Claimant are conclusively established against Claimant for all purposes. On February 13, 2026, the People filed the present motion for summary judgment. Claimant has not filed opposition or any other response to the motion. Analysis: Standard on Summary Judgment "A party may move for summary judgment in an action or proceeding if it is contended that . . . there is no defense to the action or proceeding." (Code Civ.
Proc., Sec. 437c, subd. (a)(1).) "[F]rom commencement to conclusion, the party moving for summary judgment bears the burden of persuasion that there is no triable issue of material fact and that he is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." (Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 850.) There is no obligation on the opposing party to establish anything by affidavit unless and until the moving party has by affidavit stated facts establishing every element necessary to sustain an adjudication in his favor. (Consumer Cause, Inc. v.
Smilecare (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 454, 468.) Plaintiff's Burden "[S]ummary judgment law in this state no longer requires a plaintiff moving for summary judgment to disprove any defense asserted by the defendant as well as prove each element of his own cause of action. In this particular, it now accords with federal law. All that the plaintiff need do is to 'prove[] each element of the cause of action.' (Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 437c, subd. (o)(1).)" (Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co., supra, 25 Cal.4th at p. 853.) "A plaintiff or cross-complainant has met his or her burden of showing that there is no defense to a cause of action if that party has proved each element of the cause of action entitling the party to judgment on the cause of action.
Once the plaintiff or cross-complainant has met that burden, the burden shifts to the defendant or
cross-defendant to show that a triable issue of one or more material facts exists as to the cause of action or a defense thereto. The defendant or cross-defendant shall not rely upon the allegations or denials of its pleadings to show that a triable issue of material fact exists but, instead, shall set forth the specific facts showing that a triable issue of material fact exists as to the cause of action or a defense thereto." (Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 437c, subd. (p)(1).) Separate Statement of Undisputed Material Facts "Code of Civil Procedure section 437c, subdivision (b)(1), requires each motion for summary judgment to be accompanied by a separate statement " 'setting forth plainly and concisely all material facts that the moving party contends are undisputed.
Each of the material facts stated shall be followed by a reference to the supporting evidence.' " California Rules of Court, rule 3.1350(d)(2)4 states: " 'The separate statement should include only material facts and not any facts that are not pertinent to the disposition of the motion.' " Under the Rules of Court, " ' "Material facts' " are facts that relate to the cause of action, claim for damages, issue of duty, or affirmative defense that is the subject of the motion and that could make a difference in the disposition of the motion.' " (Rule 3.1350(a)(2).)" (Beltran v.
Hard Rock Hotel Licensing, Inc. (2023) 97 Cal.App.5th 865, 874-875.) "Except as provided in Code of Civil Procedure section 437c(r) and rule 3.1351, the opposition to a motion [for summary judgment] must consist of the following separate documents, titled as shown: "(1) [Opposing party's] memorandum in opposition to [moving party's] motion for summary judgment or summary adjudication or both; "(2) [Opposing party's] separate statement in opposition to [moving party's] motion for summary judgment or summary adjudication or both; "(3) [Opposing party's] evidence in opposition to [moving party's] motion for summary judgment or summary adjudication or both (if appropriate); and "(4) [Opposing party's] request for judicial notice in opposition to [moving party's] motion for summary judgment or summary adjudication or both (if appropriate)." (Cal.
Rules of Court, rule 3.1350(e).) "The opposition papers shall include a separate statement that responds to each of the material facts contended by the moving party to be undisputed, indicating if the opposing party agrees or disagrees that those facts are undisputed. The statement also shall set forth plainly and concisely any other material facts the opposing party contends are disputed. Each material fact contended by the opposing party to be disputed shall be followed by a reference to the supporting evidence.
Failure to comply with this requirement of a separate statement may constitute a sufficient ground, in the court's discretion, for granting the motion." (Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 437c, subd. (b)(3).) "Opposition separate statements must cite to facts and evidence for the evidence to be considered by the court." (Bacoka v. Best Buy Stores, L.P. (2021) 71 Cal.App.5th 126, 131, fn. 1.) "Without at least a separate statement and evidence in the form of supporting affidavits or declarations, it is impossible to demonstrate the disputed facts. (Lyons v.
Security Pacific Nat. Bank (1995) 40 Cal.App.4th 1001, 1006-1007.) "The separate statement is not merely a technical requirement, it is an indispensable part of the summary judgment or adjudication process. 'Separate statements are required not to satisfy a sadistic urge to torment lawyers, but rather to afford due process to opposing parties and to permit trial courts to expeditiously review complex motions for . . . summary judgment to determine quickly and efficiently whether material facts are disputed.' [Citation.]" (Whitehead v.
Habig (2008) 163 Cal.App.4th 896, 902.) As noted above, Claimant did not file opposition or any other document in response to the motion for summary judgment. None of the State's facts are disputed. Those facts are: "On October 9, 2021, Claimant had in his possession at the time he was stopped by deputies from the Santa Barbara Sheriff's Department ('SBSO'), a loaded.40 caliber handgun, multiple empty baggies, a scale with marijuana and methamphetamine residue on it, a bag of rubber bands, a 5-gram bindle of methamphetamine, 11.8 ounces of marijuana, 5.59 grams of fentanyl, 6 grams of an unknown powdery substance." "Claimant had in his possession, at the time he was stopped, THIRTY-THREE THOUSAND, ONE HUNDRED DOLLARS ($33,100.00) U.S.
CURRENCY."